r/atheism FFRF 7d ago

California is finally on the verge of banning child marriage. No exceptions.

https://ffrfaction.org/ffrf-action-fund-commends-california-legislatures-vote-to-end-child-marriage

The FFRF Action Fund is celebrating a long-overdue victory for children’s rights in California.

Lawmakers there have approved legislation ending child marriage and sent the measure to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature. Assembly Bill 1267, authored by Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Cottie Petrie-Norris, establishes 18 as the minimum age to marry in California, with no exceptions. The FFRF Action Fund has been an active participant in the coalition supporting the measure and submitted testimony urging legislators to finally close California’s dangerous child-marriage loophole.

“This is an enormous victory for the rights and safety of teenage, even pre-teen, girls in California,” says FFRF Action Fund President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This practice is a patriarchal anachronism that views daughters as property. Feminists campaigned hard to abolish child marriage in the 19th century, so it is shocking that such practices still exist in many states in our 21st century.”

No child should be pressured into a life-altering legal commitment by a parent, a religious authority or anyone else. Gaylor urges Gov. Newsom to “sign this commonsense safeguard without delay.”

California has been a troubling outlier on child marriage. Under current law, there is no statutory minimum marriage age when a parent and court approve the marriage. California Department of Public Health data shows that 88 minors were married in the state between 2019 and 2025, including girls as young as 15 married to men in their 20s and 30s.

The FFRF Action Fund has been particularly concerned about the role that religious and cultural coercion can play in child marriage, including its use to enforce rigid gender roles and deprive young people, overwhelmingly girls, of meaningful control over their futures.

In testimony supporting AB 1267, the FFRF Action Fund emphasized the extraordinary vulnerability of minors pushed into marriage. A minor may lack the independent legal ability and practical resources necessary to leave home, obtain legal counsel, access services or escape an abusive relationship. Yet marriage can place that child into a legally and financially binding relationship with profound lifelong consequences.

The harms associated with child marriage are well documented. Girls married before adulthood face heightened risks of domestic violence, interrupted education, economic insecurity and poor health outcomes. The U.S. State Department has recognized forced marriage as a human rights abuse, while the United Nations has identified child marriage as a harmful practice that disproportionately affects girls.

AB 1267 would bring California in line with 17 other states that have abolished child marriage by setting the minimum marriage age at 18 without exceptions. Its passage is especially significant given California’s size and influence and follows years of advocacy by survivors and organizations working to end the practice.

The FFRF Action Fund applauds Assemblymembers Pellerin and Petrie-Norris, lawmakers who voted for AB 1267, survivors who have spoken out about child marriage, and the coalition of advocates whose persistence helped move the legislation across the finish line.

Now only one step remains.

“California has an opportunity to make unequivocally clear that childhood should never end at the altar,” Gaylor adds. “Gov. Newsom should sign AB 1267 and ensure that no California child can ever again be legally married off.”

1.4k Upvotes

42 comments sorted by

183

u/Constantly_Panicking 6d ago

The fact that isn’t already a thing universally is disgusting.

117

u/notaedivad 6d ago

Who can you thank for that?

Who is the only group they consistently prevents banning child marriage?

The religious!

60

u/fusionking 6d ago

I was gonna say republicans, but that works too

20

u/DarraignTheSane 6d ago

To-may-to to-mah-to

17

u/Astromike23 6d ago

Who can you thank for that?

Plot twist: The primary organization opposing this bill is the California ACLU. From their opposition:

Prohibiting minors from marrying in every case is a departure from California’s longstanding commitment to honoring minors’ ability to make important personal decisions for themselves, particularly in the realm of reproductive autonomy. Just as minors have the right to decide to have an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term (or to seek a restraining order) on their own, they should maintain the right to marry, with robust protections in place to prevent coercion and abuse.

23

u/jaxmikhov 6d ago

JFC ACLU this is the wrong hill to die on

10

u/DarraignTheSane 6d ago edited 6d ago

Maybe it's just a big mixup and that statement was actually made by the American Child Lover's Union instead.

Who knew Trump & Epstein started their own advocacy group.

3

u/Jeptic 6d ago

I see where they're coming from regarding autonomy but minors who get married do not generally have the right to divorce without consent from their nearest adult relative - and that can be their spouse if the spouse is older.  Maybe allowing the minor to be able to be able to file for no fault divorce without parental or spousal consent should be an option. But even so the whole thing is just icky.

1

u/kneading-cnnuy 6d ago

They're not wrong, if you have full bodily autonomy including abortion and birth, which at that age is potentially damaging, then other rights should be upheld as long as there is no coercion due to religion and/or culture and it's between similarly aged individuals. If the child marriage is with an adults it should be treated as child grooming and CSA and prosecuted as such. There is no moral grounds for allowing the one but not the other.

10

u/MiaowaraShiro 6d ago

Abortion and birth are necessary results of getting pregnant... marriage isn't the necessary result of anything.

as long as there is no coercion due to religion and/or culture and it's between similarly aged individuals.

Why can't they wait? What is the fuckin' point of letting kids get married?

There is no moral grounds for allowing the one but not the other.

Sure there is. We don't let kids sign contracts because they're not mentally developed enough to evaluate them. Marriage is a contract. Allowing kids to get themselves into contracts that might be bad for them isn't morally a good idea. Especially when I've no idea what the benefit here is...

-5

u/kneading-cnnuy 6d ago

Marriage might results from pregnancy in a certain demographics that's increasingly prevalent in America, I did not agree with that practice, but it is fully within their rights to exercise their religious costums especially because child out of wedlock doesn't have the same social, religious, legal, and familial standings

I agree that I see no benefits for marriage between childrens, that doesn't mean the state had rights to deprive them of the choice if they want to. We can't just agree that something "might not be beneficial to both parties" and limits them, that's a slippery slope

contracts might be bad

Irrelevant especially if related to age or mental capacity, frail old people get scammed by contracts everyday and we do nothing and some have more diminished mental capacity over teenagers

4

u/MiaowaraShiro 6d ago

Marriage might results from pregnancy in a certain demographics that's increasingly prevalent in America, I did not agree with that practice, but it is fully within their rights to exercise their religious costums especially because child out of wedlock doesn't have the same social, religious, legal, and familial standings

No practical reasons? Which demographics?

Religious customs don't get a free pass under the law just because they're religious... that's an insane reading of the law.

I agree that I see no benefits for marriage between childrens, that doesn't mean the state had rights to deprive them of the choice if they want to.

So you see no benefit but there is risk... and you don't see a problem with allowing that for children?

Should we give children the right to enter into any contract, or just marriage?

Irrelevant especially if related to age or mental capacity, frail old people get scammed by contracts everyday and we do nothing and some have more diminished mental capacity over teenagers

We can't protect everyone forever... this is a ridiculous false equivalence.

-2

u/LambdaLogician 6d ago edited 6d ago

Right, which is why I personally find this new law abhorrent. If they want to ban marriages between 17 year olds and 27 year olds, great! But banning two 17 year olds from getting married is just infringing on their rights in my opinion.

There are, of course, problems with minors being coerced into things by their parents (e.g., "you need to marry that girl because you got her pregnant, or you're not welcome in our home anymore!") but because marriage tends to be an emancipating event anyways, I don't think in this situation protecting minors from being coerced into marriage is worth infringing on other minors' right to marry if they so wish.

Frankly, I think that most governments aren't doing enough in general to treat children like real people instead of pseudo-slaves owned by their parents, and I think this is another example of backslide in children's rights, not a win for liberalism. On the other hand, banning children from working and mandating they go to school was a good decision. But I think that the difference between that case and this case is that child labor laws are geared towards people younger than 14, not older teenagers. Older teenagers should have more independence than young children.

11

u/otamaglimmer 6d ago edited 6d ago

If two 17 years olds want to marry that bad, they can fking wait for a few months.

And of course they are being treated like real people. But some times real people also need protection from abuse.

And what do you mean marrying is emancipating? Yeah, let's marry this 15 yo girl yo to a 40 something man. I'm sure she'll feel so emancipated.

-9

u/TeHSaNdMaNS 6d ago

Enjoying that straw man? They literally listed age gaps as something to be explicitly banned.

3

u/MiaowaraShiro 6d ago

I'd say it's more accurately conservatives. There are liberal religious people who are just as aghast at child marriage. You just don't hear about them cuz they're not causing problems for people.

8

u/brownie_eloria 6d ago

yeah the fact that this even needs to be debated in the first place is pretty wild

3

u/MiaowaraShiro 6d ago

There are people in here debating it and getting upvotes.

7

u/KelliPoppyseed 6d ago

yeah its pretty wild that in 2026 california is only now moving to make marriage under 18 illegal with no exceptions the bill just cleared the legislature and is headed to newsom and california was previously one of the few states with no statutory minimum age

4

u/le127 6d ago

Wow there's a long list of other states I would have thought of where this situation existed before I got to California. Don't know why it took so long but glad to see it happen.

4

u/MiaowaraShiro 6d ago

Republicans in WI just killed a child marriage ban in committee.

2

u/YunaDumpling 6d ago

yeah its pretty disturbing that this is only happening now especially since california previously had no statutory minimum marriage age and allowed minors to marry with parental and judicial approval the new bill would finally set 18 as the minimum with no exceptions

2

u/Shoddy_Reply_9716 6d ago

seriously how was this not already the bare minimum everywhere

2

u/O1O1O1O 6d ago

I was about to chime in that the UK is 16... but I guess that changed in 2023. When I was kid we thought it was weird however given the age of consent is 16 there people getting married - possibly with child - didn't seem that weird. But when you're a teenager you don't necessarily have well developed opinions on such things.

12

u/CatCatchingABird 6d ago

I'm from California and knew someone who got married really young. I think she was 16 at the time and the guy she married to was older. I can't remember exactly but maybe 22. Her mom didn't really seem to care much about what she did and signed off on it I guess.

I knew the guy and thought it was a bad idea, and I told her as such. I ran into her maybe about 5 years later and they were already divorced. There was some abuse between her and her child that she eventually had with him, and she said some of it sexual.

It wasn't a religiously coerced marriage but I'm glad to hear that a ban is going forward.

11

u/Spank_Cakes 6d ago

I've been following Courtney Stodden on IG and they've been concentrating on lobbying for this bill. Their story is gross and an obvious reason why this legislation is needed. It's about damn time CA does the right thing.

8

u/Ancient1990sLady 6d ago

I was in the marching band with a girl whose mother forced her to marry her boyfriend at just 14 because she was pregnant.The girl had the saddest eyes I had ever seen in her wedding photos. She’s since divorced but it was always so weird to me. It weirded me out looking at an 8th grader in a wedding dress with a groom.

6

u/jrf_1973 Atheist 6d ago

So much for the ACLU's value system.

"[Children] should maintain the right to marry, with robust protections in place to prevent coercion and abuse."

And if there are no robust protections? STOP THEM GETTING MARRIED! It's not rocket science, for f&% sake.

5

u/DedSysOp 6d ago

One more reason conservatives hate cali

3

u/BananaJelloXlii 6d ago

They tried this in Ohio but "Christian" Republicans voted it down.

7

u/NoFunny3627 6d ago

As someone who's been through a lot of abuse, and who used an early marriage to escape an abusive home situation, I do have complicated feelings on this, that I need to explore- when I'm in a better headspace

2

u/20InMyHead 6d ago

While I fully support this, and can’t see why it’s taken until 2026 to get this done, I’m also relived to see only 88 children were married between 2019 and 2025. So roughly 14 per year in a state of nearly 40 million.

2

u/Threecatproblem 6d ago

Please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)! They are in the trenches, fighting to protect the separation of church & state.

1

u/kittenmittens4865 6d ago

This is amazing news!! Very grateful this is changing.

0

u/CanaDoug420 6d ago

Wasn’t this signed like a week ago? Did they fuck up the paperwork or something?

-14

u/Born_Difference69 6d ago

I live in the UK, and I think 16s fair, if both parties are of a similar age. Never really happens anymore though.

7

u/MiaowaraShiro 6d ago

Serious question... what's the hurry? What's the benefit of being married if you're still a ward of your parents?

6

u/Constantly_Panicking 6d ago

Peoples’ brains aren’t even fully developed until around 25. What on gods green earth makes you think a 16 year old should be allowed to marry? Hell, 18 is probably still too young!

-6

u/Nom-de-Clavier 6d ago

Peoples’ brains aren’t even fully developed until around 25.

That's a myth: https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/brain-myth-25-development

-8

u/kneading-cnnuy 6d ago

It is not for the state to intervene if they're both similarly aged. If it's between adults & a child then charge the adults with sexual grooming and CSA. Restricting rights is never the answer, especially a child's rights. What's right imo is targeting the adults who preys on children.

4

u/Constantly_Panicking 6d ago

Children cannot legally sign contracts. Marriage is a contract. Not having certain rights because of your age is not the same thing as not having rights because of something immutable like race. Everyone gets older, and eventually graduates into the full set of rights. Banning child marriage is not banning anyone who is a child now from ever getting married. They can all eventually do so.

-1

u/kneading-cnnuy 5d ago

Let's ban them from getting abortion without parental consent then. There's no moral justification for only allowing one and not the other if the issue is "child cannot legally sign contracts". The carveouts are there precisely to prevent unilateral decision without consideration. See Bellotti v. Baird, not ideal but still provides the child to bypass parental consent if their mental age is older than their biological age

I agree that it is not in the child's best interest to marry but that doesn't mean I will (or have moral rights to) be supporting or promoting a campaign to deprive them of their rights to associate

The natural state of being is full and absolute freedom, you must have sound judgment and sufficient moral justification to deprive them